Here’s how area members of Congress voted on major issues in the week ending Feb. 16.
The House and Senate are in Presidents’ Day recess the week of Feb. 19.
HOUSE
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT LAWSUITS: Voting 225 for and 192 against, the House on Feb. 15 passed a bill (HR 620) that would delay by at least four months the filing of civil actions that allege public facilities are in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). At present, when parties seek to redress violations such as architectural barriers blocking wheelchair access, they can immediately register a complaint with the Department of Justice or file a civil suit in federal court. The bill adds a “notice and cure” step in which those with complaints must provide written notice to the property owner, who then has 120 days to show “substantial progress” toward fixing the deficiency. Backers said the bill would deter drive-by lawsuits by plaintiffs and attorneys seeking only to collect money. Critics said it would unfairly subject disabled persons to lengthy delays in exercising their civil rights, and would remove any incentive for businesses to comply with accessibility requirements unless a complaint was filed.
A yes vote was to send the bill to the Senate.
Voting yes: Ken Calvert, R-Corona; Paul Cook, R-Yucca Valley; Pete Aguilar, D-Redlands; Norma Torres, D-Pomona; and Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine
Voting no: Raul Ruiz, D-La Quinta; and Mark Takano, D-Riverside
CORE PROVISION OF DISABILITY BILL: Voting 188 for and 226 against, the House on Feb. 15 refused to strip HR 620 (above) of its core provision – a “notice and cure” requirement that those with complaints must wait up to 120 days before filing legal actions alleging violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act, in order to give the public facility time to fix the deficiency. Supporters of the delay say it would deter drive-by lawsuits that “extort” businesses, while foes say it deprives handicapped persons of their civil rights.
A yes vote was to strip the bill of a provision that delays the filing of legal actions.
Voting yes: Aguilar, Ruiz, and Takano
Voting no: Cook, Torres, Calvert, and Hunter
PAYDAY LOANS, USURY LAWS: By a vote of 245 for and 171 against, the House on Feb. 14 passed a bill (HR 3299) that would allow the interest on payday loans to bust state-set usury limits when the loan originates with a federally chartered bank in another state having higher or non-existent interest caps. Numerous states and the District of Columbia have usury laws that limit interest rates charged on short-term loans by financial institutions including payday lenders.
The bill would overturn a 2015 ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that prevents the National Bank Act from pre-empting the usury laws of New York, Connecticut and Vermont. The Supreme Court declined to review the ruling, which critics say has disrupted consumer-lending markets in all states.
A yes vote was to send the bill to the Senate.
Voting yes: Calvert, Cook and Hunter
Voting no: Aguilar, Torres, Ruiz and Takano
SENATE
BIPARTISAN IMMIGRATION PLAN: Voting 54 for and 45 against, the Senate on Feb. 15 failed to reach 60 votes needed to approve a bipartisan plan (HR 2579) that was the most popular of three pending immigration measures. This proposal would provide a path to citizenship for the 1.8 million undocumented aliens known as Dreamers and authorize $25 billion over 10 years for a wall and other security measures on the U.S.-Mexico border. It prohibited Dreamers from sponsoring their parents for legal status but otherwise steered clear of President Trump’s proposals (below) for greatly reducing family-based immigration.
A yes vote was to approve a bipartisan immigration-reform proposal.
Voting yes: Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
Voting no: Kamala Harris, D-Calif.
TRUMP IMMIGRATION PLAN: Voting 39 for and 60 against, the Senate on Feb. 15 turned back an amendment to HR 2579 (above) that embodied President Trump’s plan for dealing with Dreamers and other immigration issues. The least popular measure before the Senate that day, it offered 1.8 million Dreamers a path to citizenship over 10 to 12 years; budgeted $30 billion for a border wall; reduced family-based immigration to allow only the admission of spouses and children younger than 18 and stiffened penalties for undocumented immigrants who re-enter the United States after having been deported.
A yes vote was to approve the Trump immigration plan.
Voting no: Feinstein, Harris
McCAIN-COONS IMMIGRATION PLAN: Voting 52 for and 47 against, the Senate on April 15 failed to reach 60 votes needed to approve a bipartisan amendment to HR 2579 (above) that charted a path to citizenship for Dreamers but excluded funding for the U.S.-Mexico border wall advocated by President Trump. Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Chris Coons, D-Del., were the sponsors.
A yes vote was to approve the McCain-Coons bipartisan immigration plan.
Voting yes: Feinstein, Harris
SANCTUARY CITIES, IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT: Voting 54 for and 45 against, the Senate on Feb. 15 failed to reach 60 votes needed to adopt a GOP-sponsored amendment to HR 2579 (above) that would deny federal non-security grants to so-called “sanctuary cities” that refuse to act as an arm of federal immigration enforcement. There are more than 400 sanctuary cities nationwide. They say that allowing local police to double as federal agents would destroy rapport they need with immigrant communities to do their work.
A yes vote was to approve the only pending measure that did not propose changes in federal immigration law.
Voting no: Feinstein, Harris
Copyright 2018, Thomas Voting Reports, Inc.